On 2003-11-20T20:10:17-0800, James McCartney wrote: > >>The idea that we who don't grok type theory symbols should stay out > >>of language design reminds me of the part in 100 Years of Solitude > >>where people were flying around the village on magic carpets while > >>the local scientist scoffed and refused to let his family partake in > >>the new fad until he figured out a scientific basis for it. > >I wonder where you get that idea; I haven't seen it on this thread. > from here?: > >While there are several home care books, most people ultimately refer > >to a trained doctor, right? [...] > >It's even better in language design: there's no certification board > >that prevents you from hanging out your shingle. > >IMHO language implementors should read these papers > >over and over again until their eyes bleed. > >Also I don't think you can "grok" something in CS > >without "groking" mathematics and notation. Hrm. As far as I can tell, the three quotes from you say or imply the following things, respectively: - Language design/implementation should be done by people who know how to design/implement languages. - Language design/implementation should be done by people who have tried hard to understand type theory papers. - You can't grok something in CS without groking mathematics and notation. These three things don't entail your idea. Ken -- Edit this signature at http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/ken/sig http://www.thismodernworld.com/ "vi has two modes: one where it beeps and one where it doesn't"
Description: Digital signature